On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    and sfyojuld rfso advert a second time to the title of the chapter in which the nbove remark is found , namely , on the U «^ Ji of the Deity , wfc ^ t would be his surprise on being told that nothing more was meant by this unity than a unity of counsel ! A unity of cotpiaell he wojild say , between whom and what ? Between God and himself ? Or between one God , and certain other gods possessing the same essence and ^ the same attributes ? The first interpretation he would reject as meaning nothing , and the second he would consider as set

    aside by the combined force of the two chapters on the personality and the Unity of the Deity , in which it seemed to be proved that God is one intelligent agent or person . " The whole argument for the

    Divine unity goes no farther than to an unity of counsel , " If by unity of counsel we are to understand , according to the natural meaning of the words , an agreement of purpose

    between more minds than one , it may be justly observed , that nature gives evidence of no such thing . Nor , indeed , is it possible that mere uniformity of design should suggest the notion of more than one designing

    mind . To say then that the argument for the Divine unity goes no farther than to an unity of counsel , is to say , that it goes no farther than that to which it neither does nor can go . In one sense , indeed , of the word counsel , Dr . Paley ' s observation is true enough ;

    since uniformity of design , in itself considered , proves only unity of will or purpose . But when it is allowed that nature points to one Creator alone , and Dr . Paley ' s reasonings have proved that Creator to be a person , nothing seems more clear than that , according to the evidence of nature , God is one great and undivided Mind . But this is a conclusion which

    Dr . Paley seems to have been unwilling to admit . And * if I understand him rightly , to guard against this conclusion he has emphatically said , € f Certain , however , it is , that the whole argument for the Divine unity goes no farther than to an unity of counsel / ' la other words , the whole argument for tfie Divine unity

    • V fk ^ l 'VkeQlQf&f p . * S 3 l

    Untitled Article

    by «* B ^ WfcprpFsa that one pr a * Dr . paley would probably have interpreted his own ** remark / bv no means disproves a plurality of per ^ sons in the Godhead . B ^^ Cipti ll ; not have , been more just to say , tb ^ t though uniformity of design does not in itself demonstrate , that not more than one mind was concerned in the work of creation , yet when we comp to consider the attributes which we

    must ascribe to a self-existent Being , we see sufficient reason to conclude that God is one undivided and indivisible intelligence ? But without this species of reasoning , Dr . Paley ? s remarks in his incomparable chapter on the personality of the Deity , are quite sufficient to establish this

    conclusion . He observes that , "in whatever mind resides , there is a person . " And what he meant by the term person , is manifest from the definition

    which he . afterwards gives of the Deity as a " perceiving , intelligent , designing Being . " But as wherever , mind resides there is a person , if there is more than one mind and

    conse-Jneatly more than one person in the > eity , then , according to Dr . Paley , God consists of more than one intelligent and designing Being , which few will choose to acknowledge . Should any one say that I have taken advantage of the use which Dr .

    Paley has made of the term person , I answer , that when he d e fined God to be a person , and also an intelligent Being , he spoke the language of reason and common sense ; aim if there is a theological hypothesis with which

    this language is at variance , let . those look to it whom it may concern . I cannot dismiss the subject without expressing my conviction that no Trinitarian , when reading the Natural

    Theology of Paley , ever conceived of God as consisting of more than one person ; nor do I believe that the mind of the writer was ever fixed on more than one person , except it was when

    he penned "the sentence which I have been considering . Indeed * I , question not but that Trinitarians universally , except when their minds are er ^ faged on their particular doct ; rme , of when they are contem ^ Mt ^ they call the scheiue of redemption , annex the same idea to the terai God which the V f ^^( M « siP 9 ^^ & ¦ # & ^ 'USSa great rn ^ eUig ^^ ^ vhi clx tir ^ t created

    Untitled Article

    . ^ $ W ^ ^ 411 '

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1823, page 695, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1791/page/15/